Anyone who thinks America's best days are behind it should take a close look at the latest Nobel haul.

In its proud and storied history, Hungary has produced a dozen winners of the Nobel Prize: four for chemistry; three for physics; three for medicine; one for economics; and one for literature. Not bad for a little country of not quite 10 million people.

But one curious fact: All of Hungary's laureates ultimately left, or fled, the country. If you are brilliant, ambitious and Hungarian, better get out while you can.

I've spent the past week reading up on the
Nobels,
mostly to relieve the gloom emanating from Congress, the White House, the State Department, the GOP caucus. It's paralysis time in D.C., and America-in-Decline time on the op-ed pages. Reflecting the global mood, Xinhua, the Chinese news agency, editorialized last week that, with a possible U.S. default on the horizon, "it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world."

But then there is the Nobel Prize, and the fact that Americans, both native-born and immigrants, took home nine of them this year alone. Note to Xinhua: China, with 1.3 billion people, has produced a grand total of nine winners in its entire history. Of those nine, seven live abroad, including three in the U.S. Another,
Liu Xiaobo
,
sits in a Chinese prison.

How is national greatness best judged? The typical view is that what matters is size: Size of the economy, population, landmass, navy, nuclear arsenal. Hence the hysteria that China may overtake the U.S. in terms of GDP sometime in the next decade. Hence the treatment of middling powers such as Russia (with a GDP roughly that of Italy's) as great powers.

But a better metric for greatness is the ability of nations to produce, cultivate, attract and retain intellectual greatness. What is the ratio of Nobel laureates living in any one country to the total population? Russia, with a population of 142 million, has three living Nobel laureates, or one for every 47 million. So much for the land of
Pasternak
and
Sakharov.

A more interesting case is Israel. The Jewish state should be a Nobel powerhouse, given that Jews, 0.2% of the world's population, have won 20% of all Nobels, including six prizes this year alone. But while Israel can claim nine living laureates, three of them live and teach mainly in the U.S. Why? "There are a lot of smart people in Israel and at the same time there was not a job, so he left,"
Benny Shalev,
brother of this year's chemistry winner, Arieh Warshel, explained to the newspaper Haaretz. It isn't enough for countries to produce geniuses. They also have to figure out how to employ them.

Then there is Europe: Half a billion people with a comparatively minuscule Nobel representation. France has, by my count, just 10 living laureates. Germany does better, with nearly 30, although at least nine of them (including
Henry Kissinger
,
physicist
Arno Penzias,
and this year's medicine winner,
Thomas Südhof
), have long lived in the U.S. Britain does about the same as Germany.

Why is Europe such a Nobel laggard? In hindsight, evicting and killing most of its Jewish population was perhaps not the best idea—a lesson that still goes unlearned, considering the feverish efforts on European campuses to boycott Israeli academics.

A more contemporary answer is the pervasive mediocrity of higher education throughout the EU. Cambridge and Oxford aside, the Shanghai
Jiao Tong
rankings list only one European university—the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich—in its top 30, and Switzerland isn't even a member of the EU. Most European universities, overcrowded and underfunded, can't hope to compete with their American peers.

Which brings us to the Nobel superpower. Since 2000, Americans have won 21 of the 37 physics prizes, 18 of the 33 medicine prizes, 22 of the 33 chemistry prizes and an astonishing 27 of the 30 economics prizes. Pretty impressive considering our nonstop anxiety about failing schools, mediocre international test scores, undergrads not majoring in math or the sciences, and the rest. Singapore, South Korea and Finland may regularly produce the highest test scores among 15-year-olds, but something isn't translating: Nobody from Singapore has ever won a Nobel. Korea has one—for peace. The
Finns
last took a science prize in 1967.

The government shutdown is unfortunate; a default would be a disaster. But anyone who thinks America's best days are behind us should take a close look at the latest Nobel haul. It says something that we take it for granted.

Yes, Europeans killed 6 millions Jews only to replace them by 30 million Muslims who by the nature of their culture, see greatness in keeping their women illiterate, and their men fighting against the "intoxicated" European culture.

which understates State/Fed support provided to so many colleges and universities in the US, perhaps there really is role for taxes and State involvement in society at large that the WSJ too often dismisses?

", but something isn't translating:""The government shutdown is unfortunate; a default would be a disaster."

Not all Nobel are equal. The countries of South Korea, Singapore and Finland do measure up with world class product. Israel is in a class of it's own when population is figured into the equation.As for the shutdown default disaster, we may get to blast through the Lew 10-17 timeline and find another press fabricated myth about the world coming to an immediate recessionary end. As Nike is found of saying, "Go for it".

The per-capita GDP of China is $2,100. Sure, it may "surpass" America in raw numbers, but what good is it if the average person can only buy an Apple laptop with their total annual income? 10% of $2,100 is $210 in growth per person. America's 2% translates into $750 in growth. Chinese growth looks good only because the country is so poor, but at the end of the day, China is still falling behind America. Our paltry 2% still produces 3 times as much raw growth. That's the thing about being big - the percentages start to shrink.

I appreciate this article as a reminder of the greatness of this country and the kind of people that it has drawn.

However, Economics (not really a Nobel prize) and literature aside and forget about the "peace" prize, you should be warned that this may not last as long as our stupid government continues to cut funding for science. It will take at least a generation to see the decline in numbers. Did you know that at the present time, the NIH, for instance, funds only less than 10% of the grant applications it receives, which is a 200% decline compared to only 10-15 years ago? And also did you know that the vast majority of the grants funded by the NIH cost only 250K A YEAR per investigator, compared to, let's say, 1 million dollars A DAY to keep an aircraft carrier going?

You are right; there are many smart people in America. Unfortunately, many of the dumbest ones appear to be running our country.

"...the gloom emanating from Congress, the White House, the State Department, the GOP caucus"

Here in fly over land I haven't noticed any gloom as a result of the current shutdown / slimdown. The economy is still stagnant, but most of us manage to overcome it.

The media and the political class consider Washington to be the nexus of everything in the US, but nothing could be further from the truth. We make the country work in spite of Washington and the political class.

The hard-science Nobels that US-based researchers won in recent years came out of work done decades earlier, almost all of it in government-funded research labs or in private universities working under government contracts. The basic research that wins hard-science Nobels originates under public-funding. We were once much better than most other nations at funding such basic research, but that was decades ago and now we are discarding our lead in the name of "drowning government in a bathtub" and other such nonsense.

Don't crow about our crop of Nobel prizes in 2014 Mr Stephens; they were won under conditions of government investment that you have passionately decried and demonstrate the utter folly of the policies you advocate.

Nobels get the headlines but patents are a better indicator of current intellectual energy of a country or region.

By that measure the US does well but other regions do better. While the US has about 1.8 million patents in force, Western Europe has well over 2.1 million patents in force. Japan, with a little over a third of the population of the US, has 1.3 million patents in force. while South Korea with 1/6 of our population has 0.6 million patents in force. Put another way, Japan and South Korea together, with half the population of the US, have about the same number of patents in force.

A good example of why Nobels, which primarily involve research, are not a good indicator of a countries technical prowess, while patents are is the development of Lithium-Ion batteries. The research on these types of batteries was largely done in the US and Europe. In fact it was first proposed by British researcher, M.S. Whittingham while working at Exxon in the early 70s. However the first real production of a Li-Ion battery was by Sony in 1991. Since then Japan and South Korea have come to control the Li-Ion battery market with 80% of the world's production while the US produces about 2%.

The development and commercialization of Li-Ion batteries led to an even bigger technical development with the production of hybrid cars, notably the Toyota Prius, which incorporates Li-Ion batteries, IC engines, and regenerative braking, developments which taken together constitute a revolutionary development in transportation, yet I'm not aware of any Nobels awarded to its developers.

How is it that this is not just another popularity contest? When Obama won the prize for no accomplishments, that makes it quite clear that the criteria is who is voting and not what the candidates accomplishments are.

Stephens misleads wrt Europe. To measure potential he cites the entire population of Europe. But to measure success, he cites the statistics of individual European countries. It's like claiming that the US is doing poorly because very few if any laureates have been produced by the state of Iowa even though the population of the US is 350 million.

In addition, several people have commented on the fact that current laureates reflect on the production of 20-30 years ago. During that time Europe was finally recovering from the devastation caused by Germany's assaults on the rest of Europe in World Wars I and II. East and West Germany were rejoined in 1990.

It does not dawn on the naïve Mr. Stephens that the Nobel prize may be an indication of bias, not excellence. A mark of propaganda, thus weakness, not a proof of superiority.

The university classification system is riddled by tricks to make universities of the USA look good, relatively speaking. For example French Nobels are counted… half for the universities the work for (for devious reasons).

Another example: Switzerland has 22 Nobels in science, France, only 35. However, Switzerland is not, historically speaking, the author of major breakthroughs in science and technology. Or actually not of ANY breakthrough. France is.

So what is taught, and impressed upon, is lots of lies. Take aviation: France dominated it by 1910. But were not the Wright brothers Americans? Sure, and they invented a number of useful devices. However, the first motorized flights were made 13 years earlier, using a light weight steam engine, in a French military program (Clement Ader).

Some will object: ah, but Switzerland had Einstein (more or less refugee from Germany), and he invented E = mcc, it's well known. While in Bern. Well known, but somewhat of a cheat: Einstein actually stole both the formula and the proof from work published by Poincare' in 1900, five years earlier, in the most well known Dutch Physics Journal (Lorentz, a Dutch who wrote the space-time transformation law was from there, and Poincare' got him the Nobel by 1904).

So why is E = mcc Einstein's formula and not Poincare'? Because reality in the dominant Anglo-Saxon-Germanoid culture has a well known anti-French bias. Much better to have a German Jew the author of E= mc^2 than some super genius Frenchman. That would tell us, that, if there is one super genius Frenchman, there might be more, and thus a financial transaction tax may not be such a bad idea. Hence the official plutocratic propaganda shall insist that French frogs have no brains, and never bathe.

And bias does not stop at France. Bose, an Indian genius, who got the idea of bosons, the force particles, with their weird statistics, never got the Nobel in physics: because British imperialists objected to Bose's opinions in matters political.

So what do we see? Lots of Nobels in the USA's "private" universities. Does that mean those people got the most fundamental ideas? Not so sure.

When Eric Kandel went to Paris, he spent a year learning to work with Aplysia, and later got the Nobel for his remarkable work on learning. However, did the Paris teachers got the Nobel? No. Who started that flow of research and originated the basic ideas? Not necessarily Kandel.

And so on. In many fields, most people sitting in the Nobel committee are American, so maybe the Nobel ought to be called the "American prize", a bit like the "Academy Awards".

It would be most profitable, in the realm of ideas, to determine who and how the best and deepest ideas arose. Start by attributing the discovery of the First Law of Newton, the law of inertia, to Buridan, who discovered and advertized it, three centuries before Newton was born. Buridan was the rector of the university of Paris, adviser to kings (among others), contradictor of Aristotle, and discovered Copernic's work 170 years before it was taught to Copernicus at the university of Cracow, where Copernicus was a student.

What truly count, for intellectual superiority, is, who got the big idea first, and how deep. The rest is propaganda at best, and outright thievery, racism and hatred, at worst.

I pray that Stephens is right but I fear he isn't. What we are seeing now is a twilight of the Gods. According to studies I've read, each succeeding generation after the post sputnik generation is falling further and further behind international peer groups. US education seems to focus more on political outcomes than on educational achievement. At this point reform is looking increasingly unlikely.

The only way to get higher ratings is to alter the scoring rules to include the subjects of political correctness, male self-loathing, and anti-nationalism. The US will be unquestioned number one in those three subjects. Orwell would be proud, or at least very amused.

An auspicious moment to examine intra-national claims of intellectual equality and excellence:

As of 2006, women ranked as 4.5% (n=35) of Nobel Prize laureates, with two-thirds of their awards in Literature and Peace. Nineteen Prizes were won by organizations. The remaining 744 Prizes were earned by men. The 48 recipients of the Fields Medal - viewed as the top honor a mathematician can receive - are all men.

In “Why g Matters,” Linda Gottfredson estimates that a minimum of IQ 120 is needed to be competitive in “high-level” jobs “… [and] the probability is that only 37% of the workforce at that level will be female”. At IQ 130 (+2SD), males comprise 82%; IQ 145 (+3SD), 88% and at IQ 160 (+4SD), associated with genius, males comprise 97%.

[Reflecting the global mood, Xinhua, the Chinese news agency, editorialized last week that, with a possible U.S. default on the horizon, "it is perhaps a good time for the befuddled world to start considering building a de-Americanized world."]

To be expected, five years after the United States made a national suicide pact with Obama and his deluded followers.

I belong to no religion, nor pray to any named deity, but I assert the USA’s greatest freedom and its source of greatness is the freedom of religion. The government cannot, and should not, effectively set values for a polity. The religions of personal choice, freely exercised in a general atmosphere of acceptance, set the values for the people who comprise the polity.

A typical Bret Stephens piece, in which real insight is often lacking.

Nobel Prize winnings are given to discoveries done long time ago. It is a trailing indicator, often by several decades. The original Higgs Boson Hypothesis was proposed in the 60s, when sadly China was in the midst of the mad Cultural Revolution -- not only then college level of education was non-existent, but also the expected lifetime school-hours of Chinese then was like 20% of their American counterparts. (today greater than 100%)

Between 1901 and 1919, there was only 1 American-born Nobel Prize winners in natural sciences, compared to 6 Dutchmen and 20 Germans. Should you short America in 1919?

While I don't disagree with the sentiment, Mr. Stephens, I do believe your misreading the facts. Nobel Prize winners are lagging indicators. Most prizes are awarded after sufficient time has passed to prove/support the theory or work being awarded, which normally translates into a lifetime. Assuming a 30 year period, the awards you saw from 2000 to today represent the minds cultivated in the 70s and 80s. The educated masses today will select their winners in 30 or 40 years.

What a horrible article. These guys are all north of 60, some in their 70s and those being recognized in Economics are being recognized for work decades ago.

Look at our current fiscal state and tell me who from America is going to win a Nobel Prize for Economics in 30 years? Barack Obama for finding out precisely how much debt a country can take on before you go into the abyss?

Academia is purging all independent thought, leaving behind mostly conformist mediocrities. It started in the humanities and is now infecting the sciences to the extent possible. If the US maintains its lead it will only be because the rest of the world experiences proportionate decline

Bret Stephens, can you honestly claim that it matters that Americans win Nobel prizes, in terms of directing where the country is heading?

I thought not.

It is a distinctly US preoccupation to worry about which nation is "greatest". Bret wants to use Nobel prizes to keep score, as a measure of "intellectual greatness". But who cares, as long as we face intractable problems such as the irreconcilable red/blue ideological split and a fragmented multicultural landscape in which people identify more closely with their racial kindred than with other Americans? How are the Nobel prize winners going to move America toward a brighter future, given those differences?

Given our social problems, which lead to economic problems, it is irrelevant if the US is "greater" intellectually, as long as people living in certain other countries are more satisfied with their lives and their countries.

Patents are an interesting indicator but it reminds me of something I saw yesterday. I was at a children's museum where they just opened up an exhibit to teach kids about money and finances. About a dozen kids were participating in a game: 3 teams, 3 boxes of giant Legos, and on these blocks were taped various denominations of money. 2 teams built short stacks, one team built a tall stack. You win when your stack isn't the highest, but which stack comprises the most money. You might see where I'm going with this. The team that built a tall stack only had about $50 in blocks represented, while both the teams who built short stacks had over $150 in blocks, so they won.

Point is, doesn't matter if Europe has 2.1 million patents; 1 million of those could be for book-lights and espresso machines. We may have less patents, but they are far more valuable.

The Peace Prize is the popularity contest; and I'll argue the Literary Prize too. But for Economics, Chemistry, all the sciences, the winners must show results. Higgs won because CERN proved the particle named after him does indeed exist.

Why does your narrow, insipid, and terrifically angry little mind get off this way? And, while you're laboriously pondering what I might mean, please note that the posed question is not half as mean as it is honest! Moreover, you are no less unwise to share your profoundly anti-democratic sensitiblities. Although I am sure you won't spare us from further insults as you heap on America, your speaking so unfondly of those whom you call low information voters, the one who, forturnately for you, are not so anti-democratic as you, that you seem to have left out how that particularly interesting alternative, Mitt Romney, who, I guess would be your idea of a, oh, non-Dear Leader someone, whom "high information voters" would like. Tsk, he sort of lost out in his appeal, did he not? You'd think it was due to their not being enough high information voters. Oddly, if you were numerate, well-informed, and sensible, you'd see, sadly, that your opinion did not fit with the data, Karl Rove's fictions aside. Sure, for you, it is a conundrum. But, really, for a narrow, insipid, and terrifically angry little mind, what is not a conundrum?

That is absolutely right. The President has said he will not negotiate under the threat of the shut down and debt limit. These are proverbial 'guns to the head' My earlier point is that it is not a negotiation. The House Republicans offer is 'Give us (fill in the blank) or we will let the government shut down or Default.'

That is not a negotiation. That is not bargaining in good faith.

A negotiation would be, 'If you give us (fill in the blank) we will give you(fill in the blank).

We, as a country, with Obama's energy policies, are very nearly at the point where we will be energy independent. And yet, the world market drives pricing. They are not going down any time soon, and it has nothing to do with our President, or his policies.

Fast and Furious, if you are still talking about that, you have not read what really went on. Check out Fortune magazine, they did an in depth story.

Benghazi. While unfortunate to lose 4 Americans, we seem to have lost a lot more in wars started by the previous administrations. Oh, and I did a quick search and the were some thirteen attacks similar to Benghazi during the Bush administration. Don't see those being dredged up over and over again.

The IRS thing, seems like a regional office run amok. I'm sure you view it as a vast conspicy, but from what I read about it, it was not nearly nefarious as the right suggests.

I think we should shrink government, lets lay off another million government workers. That should help unemployment. Well, they don't pay taxes do they?

I know the defecit is trending down, and approaching historical norms for percentage of GDP, but lets eliminate all the basic scince research the government is involved in. And we could stop inspecting meat. I was thinking of becoming a vegetarion anyways. Might move next to a cement plant, I'm sure those noxious fumes are safe. We have got to keep buying those F-35's thou. All three versions. Love that plane. Dirt cheap. See the Chinese are bagging out of their stealth plane.

But yes, we need a 'Grand Bargain' with EVERYTHING on ther table, well averything except Obamacare. We need to give that a ride for a while. With both sides negotiating in good faith. Again, kinda hard to do, if the other side refuses to negotiate, or worse, for Tea Partiers, to COMPROMISE. (and no, you are too smart to say the Democrats should be negotiating over the shutdown. Negotiations are a two way street, and Republican/Tea Partiers have not offered anything in return)

Or maybe it was the Republican house pact to declare it's refusal to work with a new president, before he had even taken office, and veering even further right to take the economy right to the brink of destruction.

You really do have a distorted view of current events, don't you? You studiously avoid all mention of Obama's refusal to consider the Keystone Pipeline as a means of increasing the "energy independence" you claim he has engendered (although you appear to be the only one here who can even define his "energy policies."). In fact, your tiresome diatribe is rather like a budget tour of mainstream media propaganda. The complete story of Fast and Furious is still unfolding, so just how "in depth" could Fortune's analysis have been? As for Benghazi, since only 4 lives were lost, that makes it unworthy of further investigation-- especially since more lives were lost in Iraq and Afghanistan? and, good grief! Under previous administrations? ( In other words, if I kill my wife that would be less egregious because other men before me have killed their wives?) Why not extend your "quick search(es)" and superficial comparisons back to Vietnam? to Korea? to the Spanish-American War? Finally, once you dismissed the IRS debacle as nothing more than "a regional office run amok," (Lois Lerner's Fifth Amendment plea notwithstanding), and as no more than a crackpot conspiracy theory-- "from "what (you) read about it"-- well, then I knew for sure that we were dealing with a democrat party stooge who is capable of doing little more than regurgitating ludicrous progressive talking points.

"The president hammered home that he won't capitulate on his refusal to negotiate policy issues with Republicans on legislation to raise the debt ceiling or a short-term resolution to reopen the government."

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.